chlamor
01-05-2009, 07:50 PM
In November, 1972, the late and much lamented novelist and essayist Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) analyzed American politics succinctly in an article ("In a Manner that Must Shame God Himself") published in Harpers magazine.
He pointed out that the United States (like many other representative democracies) features two "imaginary" political parties -- the Republicans and the Democrats. He also said that there were two "real" political parties in the USA -- the "Winners" and the "Losers."
The Winners, he went on, control both imaginary parties. The Losers get to vote. So, in any election, this much is certain: the Winners will win.
Of course, folks like Marx and Engels were even more concise. The state, they said, is the Executive Committee of the Ruling Class.
None of this means that well-meaning progressives are not occasionally elected, though I don't see how Mr. Obama, who opposes single-payer medicare, gay marriage and full reproductive choice for women, who supports capital punishment, "charter" schools and an intensified war in the Middle East, and who describes himself economically as a "free market kind of guy," qualifies as a full-bore progressive. (He would, for example, find a congenial home in the Conservative Party of Canada.)
In ordinary times, it is true, a smattering of progressives can be elected to Congress and, in extraordinary times, progressives of a sort may even come close to what passes for power. Historically, they have been successful to a certain extent. Slavery has been abolished. Women can vote. Most of the time, the Rule of Law is more or less respected.
In their general defense, progressives have certainly pushed for the amelioration of some of the worst consequences of corporate capitalism by instituting unemployment insurance, federal pensions, social assistance to the poor, occasional opportunities for trade union organization, elementary civil rights for minorities, modest efforts to achieve equity for women and aboriginal peoples, minimal public health and occupational safety regulations, tentative environmental protection programs, basic education, public libraries and broadcasting facilities, and the like.
These are unfettered human goods, and are not lightly to be dismissed. Their principal pertinent effect, however, is to save capitalism from itself, temporarily repair a fundamentally flawed and ultimately untenable system, and allow it to lurch along to its next inevitable "crisis."
What could be more obvious?
He pointed out that the United States (like many other representative democracies) features two "imaginary" political parties -- the Republicans and the Democrats. He also said that there were two "real" political parties in the USA -- the "Winners" and the "Losers."
The Winners, he went on, control both imaginary parties. The Losers get to vote. So, in any election, this much is certain: the Winners will win.
Of course, folks like Marx and Engels were even more concise. The state, they said, is the Executive Committee of the Ruling Class.
None of this means that well-meaning progressives are not occasionally elected, though I don't see how Mr. Obama, who opposes single-payer medicare, gay marriage and full reproductive choice for women, who supports capital punishment, "charter" schools and an intensified war in the Middle East, and who describes himself economically as a "free market kind of guy," qualifies as a full-bore progressive. (He would, for example, find a congenial home in the Conservative Party of Canada.)
In ordinary times, it is true, a smattering of progressives can be elected to Congress and, in extraordinary times, progressives of a sort may even come close to what passes for power. Historically, they have been successful to a certain extent. Slavery has been abolished. Women can vote. Most of the time, the Rule of Law is more or less respected.
In their general defense, progressives have certainly pushed for the amelioration of some of the worst consequences of corporate capitalism by instituting unemployment insurance, federal pensions, social assistance to the poor, occasional opportunities for trade union organization, elementary civil rights for minorities, modest efforts to achieve equity for women and aboriginal peoples, minimal public health and occupational safety regulations, tentative environmental protection programs, basic education, public libraries and broadcasting facilities, and the like.
These are unfettered human goods, and are not lightly to be dismissed. Their principal pertinent effect, however, is to save capitalism from itself, temporarily repair a fundamentally flawed and ultimately untenable system, and allow it to lurch along to its next inevitable "crisis."
What could be more obvious?